What the Simpson verdict may mean for victims of domestic violence: Susanna Lobez (SL) interviewed Gloria Allred (GA), a lawyer who represented the family of Nicole Brown Simpson, for The Law Report on Tuesday, 10th October 1995. Here is a summary of some of the points raised. Quotes are in italics and my comments are in brackets [ ].

[I am not a lawyer. I am not familiar with the evidence in this case. I have no idea whether the right verdict was reached. My concerns about this interview are more about the gender-specific nature of Allred's comments, the sweeping conclusions that she draws encompassing the whole issue of domestic violence (while ignoring the racial dimension, which was also considered in public debate on the trial), and her apparent willingness to criticise commonly accepted standards and practices to promote the results that she wants.]

What does Gloria Allred think of the acquittal? GA:

Based on the verdict, it appears to me that the jury must not have thoroughly reviewed the evidence in this case. And I think that's a sad indictment of the system. I feel the jury listened, but did they really hear Nicole's voice from the grave?

[A lawyer is saying that, although OJ was acquitted, the jury was wrong. This sentiment is apparent in later comments also. I am not sure what can be said in such situations without being slanderous. As for the second statement, to my knowledge, voices from the grave are not admissible as evidence, although tape recordings may be.]

I think it was a very sad day for all victims of violence. I don't think justice was served in this case - and in millions of other cases throughout this country, where women are victimised by violence and the system fails to protect them or to make the perpetrators accountable for their violent and criminal acts against women.

[She not only disagrees with this verdict, but somehow extends that to "millions of other cases". Does she say exactly what is wrong with "the system"? Does she oppose jury trials? If so, why? Are millions of jurors biased?]

The verdict sends a clear message that money, power and celebrity can make a difference. And the system still fails to respect the civil rights of murder victims. This is also an especially important verdict for women victims throughout this nation.

[So she says he is guilty, but bought an acquittal. She is right, the jury is wrong. She also says that this is a bigger concern for women victims than for men victims. Why?]

Millions of women are still being beaten, terrorised, seriously injured and killed, by men who say that they love them but who use, abuse and hurt them. Like Nicole, many of these women are young mothers of children. They, like Nicole, had a right to expect that the justice system would be there to protect them, and punish those who abuse them and destroy their self esteem and their spirit, and their bodies and their lives.

[Here as in the previous statement, she sees this as a gender issue. What she sees as a wrong decision in one case is used as proof of injustices against "millions of women".]

They have a right to expect that they can be safe from violence in their homes and in the streets. But often they are sorely disappointed. Many of the crimes against them are never reported to the authorities, because the women fear that the system is not going to oppose any real consequences on those who hurt them. And they fear that the risk of harm to them is going to increase because they reported the batterer to the authorities.

[Why does she consider only crimes against women which are not reported to the authorities? Are there no such crimes against men?]

The experience of Nicole in calling 911 eight or nine times without the system every forcing Mr Simpson to pay any meaningful consequences for his acts against her, is typical of what women endure on a daily basis.

["typical", "women", "daily basis" - gender specific, sweeping unsupported assertions]

I look forward to the day in this nation when the system begins to be a bit more accountable to women. And I'm very concerned that many people may hear this verdict and may mistakenly believe that a marriage licence is a hunting licence and a licence to kill. It is not. And I hope this verdict will not deter women from standing up for their rights and continuing to fight the injustices against them.

[Once again, gender specific - are all jurors biased against women? Are injustices only against women? How many people would take the verdict to mean what she suggests. The last sentence above indicates that she does not mean "people", she means "men" seeing a "license to kill" (despite earlier referring to "money, power and celebrity").]

Later in the interview, the following exchange took place -

SL:

One of the jurors that we have seen speaking to the media said that it wasn't a battered wife case, it was a murder case, and that they somehow separated those two issues. Do you think that was appropriate?

GA:

I was appalled by that statement. The prosecution's theory was that murder was the ultimate act of domestic violence, and that all the other acts of control that Mr Simpson exercised over Nicole - like using a baseball bat to break in the windshield of her car, breaking down her door, and beating her, and listening to the 911 tapes and her cry for help and hearing him rage in the background, on one of the 911 tapes, seemingly out of control - that all of that led up to the ultimate act of violence, murder - is what the prosecution's theory of the case was. That not only was it offered to prove motive but to try to prove the identity of the perpetrator of these murders.

It was just appalling that the juror said what she did. She apparently did not understand the prosecution's theory of the case, or did not agree with it, and I think showed a lack of understanding of domestic violence, which I would prefer to call spousal abuse.

[The trial was for the murder only. Any prior incidents of domestic violence may provide circumstantial evidence, but he was not being tried for those incidents, so even if they were proved, that was not the issue that the jury was asked to rule on. By that interpretation, the juror's approach is not only appropriate, but essential to the pursuit of justice in the case.

On a related point, Subsection 62 (4) of the (New Zealand) Human Rights Act states that, "Where a person complains of sexual harassment, no account shall be taken of any evidence of the person's sexual experience or reputation". Similarly, there are in some places requirements that previous convictions of an accused person not be disclosed. The point seems to be established in law that there are clear boundaries around what things should be considered and in what way they should be considered.]

Follow this link for the full transcript of the interview.

Stuart Birks

16 December, 1995